:::::I've got something to add to this. I've recently been updating my old articles to get them into prime (as I can get) working order. This involves a lot of changes to articles. I've been kinda curious, because I've got some adopted articles that are basically total re-writes in terms of mechanics and fluff text, but maintain the concept of the original article (thus still being a derivative work of it). Now, if an adopted article no longer goes along the same concept and is no longer recognizable as the source material, is is fair to claim it as an original work? I guess the example I'm getting at here is the asuta (formerly deathly asuta, formerly Ðèäth Äñgè‡). [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Deathly_Asutas_(3.5e_Race)&oldid=334407 Check here for the lovely original before I adopted it] and [[Asuta (3.5e Race)|check here for the newly revised version]] (with the now [[Asuta Paragon (3.5e Racial Paragon Class)|asuta paragon]] class as well). I really don't care either way, just curious is all for precedent. To be fair, the asuta does maintain some of the original ideas of the Ðèäth Äñgè‡, which is why I've kept it under "Adopted".

:::::I've got something to add to this. I've recently been updating my old articles to get them into prime (as I can get) working order. This involves a lot of changes to articles. I've been kinda curious, because I've got some adopted articles that are basically total re-writes in terms of mechanics and fluff text, but maintain the concept of the original article (thus still being a derivative work of it). Now, if an adopted article no longer goes along the same concept and is no longer recognizable as the source material, is is fair to claim it as an original work? I guess the example I'm getting at here is the asuta (formerly deathly asuta, formerly Ðèäth Äñgè‡). [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Deathly_Asutas_(3.5e_Race)&oldid=334407 Check here for the lovely original before I adopted it] and [[Asuta (3.5e Race)|check here for the newly revised version]] (with the now [[Asuta Paragon (3.5e Racial Paragon Class)|asuta paragon]] class as well). I really don't care either way, just curious is all for precedent. To be fair, the asuta does maintain some of the original ideas of the Ðèäth Äñgè‡, which is why I've kept it under "Adopted".

+

+

::::::I think that's a case where you should be moved into the author space (since it's your work at this point) and they should be moved into the contributor space (since they kicked in substantially with ideas). I don't know that it's what we want as a wiki, but that's how it looks to me and how I would assign credit. Which means I should probably figure out a way to split up wiki co-authors from non-wiki co-authors so that we don't have link issues... blegh... - [[User:Tarkisflux|TarkisFlux]] 05:13, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:13, March 19, 2010

I think in the author template, when adopted is used, doesn't give enough bolding/emphasis on "Original Creator". I'm not much of a UI person so I'm not sure how to fix that. Any ideas? Surgo 18:19, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the difference between the "Adopter" and "Original Creator" boxes may be due to the line "! colspan="2" class="user" |" in the template. I'll test it on one of the pages with a temporary clone template. Quantumboost 19:02, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Just saying, though: I know how to fix that much; what I really meant was that I wasn't enough of an artist to better make the eye drawn to the original creator. Surgo 19:18, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Yeah. In that case, I'm not much more qualified to do anything about it. XD Quantumboost 19:53, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

We already have lots of attention given to whoever owns it, we can just decide that we want that attention to whoever wrote it instead of whoever owns / is maintaining it. If that would work, we just can change teh bahavior of the template such that it leaves the original creator in the top box for attention purposes and just doesn't make it a link, and then have adopter be the line immediately beneath and a live link to the user. That boosts the author's presence a lot and dumps the adopter down to glorified babysitter (in my head anyway), but probably works better for things where that's all that they are anyway. For actual shared works with a lead and active contributors we have the contributors tag (which I want to change to co-authors or whatever since contributor is a rather broad term on a wiki, but I digress), which I think covers cases where someone adopts it and then turns around and does lots of work on it (like I intend to do with Jay's stuff that I took over) better anyway. - TarkisFlux 21:32, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

I've got something to add to this. I've recently been updating my old articles to get them into prime (as I can get) working order. This involves a lot of changes to articles. I've been kinda curious, because I've got some adopted articles that are basically total re-writes in terms of mechanics and fluff text, but maintain the concept of the original article (thus still being a derivative work of it). Now, if an adopted article no longer goes along the same concept and is no longer recognizable as the source material, is is fair to claim it as an original work? I guess the example I'm getting at here is the asuta (formerly deathly asuta, formerly Ðèäth Äñgè‡). Check here for the lovely original before I adopted it and check here for the newly revised version (with the now asuta paragon class as well). I really don't care either way, just curious is all for precedent. To be fair, the asuta does maintain some of the original ideas of the Ðèäth Äñgè‡, which is why I've kept it under "Adopted".

I think that's a case where you should be moved into the author space (since it's your work at this point) and they should be moved into the contributor space (since they kicked in substantially with ideas). I don't know that it's what we want as a wiki, but that's how it looks to me and how I would assign credit. Which means I should probably figure out a way to split up wiki co-authors from non-wiki co-authors so that we don't have link issues... blegh... - TarkisFlux 05:13, March 19, 2010 (UTC)